Skip to main content

time travel - Was Kyle Reese always John Connor's father?



If Kyle Reese was always John Connor's father:



  • Kyle pops out of nowhere, impregnates Sarah, dies, and then Kyle Reese is born, becomes a member of resistance and he is sent back in time. John Connor was always Kyle Reese's son.


But:




  • SkyNet sent the Terminator specifically to affect time, (prevent the leader of resistance from being born), and the resistance also sent someone, and they do affect the future: (delaying judgement day, improving SkyNet, killing a bunch of other Sarahs, etc.).


Was Kyle Reese always John Connor's father, or was there a timeline in which someone else fathered him?



Answer



simple answer is that small edits in the timeline didn't effect anything "major"


Less simple answer (beware of timey-wimey stuff):


Consider this.


Kyle was sent back in time because the first Terminator was sent back in time. The first Terminator was sent back in time because the resistance was winning, and skynet wanted to kill John Connor before he could become a problem (by killing his mother pre-conception). This is impossible because to do so would invalidate the reason to send the Terminator back in the first place.


Now, Kyle became John's Father. Had he not been sent back, john would never exist, the machines would not have a reason to send the Terminator back, and stuff would break.


Here's the thing. You ask about multiple futures with a single timeline, but you don't specify WHICH timeline. Each individual has different timelines in relation to the other characters. Kyle's timeline involves him going back in time, fathering John, and dying. However, that's HIS timeline. John's timeline has Kyle eventually being born, then sent back in time. When Kyle gets to the past, he creates John. The same John that sent him back, mind you.



Now the complicated part. the major events, the pieces that influenced the time travel, the core reasons for doing so never changed. skynet was created. The resistance is born. John Connor and the resistance kick ass. The Terminator is sent back in time. Kyle follows him. all that still happens in the "changed" futures from the later films. The details that do change are things like the date of Judgement Day. Regardless of when the war starts, the end result is the same. Thus, the start of the war doesn't matter. It is in something like a temporal flux. Because the exact date it begins is not important to the time travel plots, it can be altered slightly. Causality will not allow the complete prevention of the war. If the war never begins, then the Terminator isn't sent back, Kyle isn't sent back, John isn't born, and there is nothing to stop the war. BUT, because Kyle (and in T2 Arnold) are sent back and tell Sarah about the future, her actions are able to influence events in flux. She can't stop them completely, but they can be changed. Perhaps over the many loops the changes were incremental, but by the time T3 comes around, the changes have pushed the beginning of the war back a good ways.


The major issue at hand is that there are two separate veins of time-travel/causality theories. One says that a new timeline branches off when one goes back in time (not "going back in time" as much as simply going to a different alternate universe/timeline where conditions are identical to how things were at the target point. See: Dragon Ball Z). The second says that causality is absolute, and there is a single timeline. any changes made to the past have already occurred, and thus are not "changes". They're simply events on the (immutable) timeline. Once something has been experienced, it is frozen and will always happen.


The terminator Universe mixes both theories to an extent. They generally follow absolute causality, but allow for some changes. Thus, it is hard to reconcile these things.


tl;dr is that the "changes" are minor enough to not actually effect anything important temporally speaking, though should not strictly have been possible.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why didn't The Doctor or Clara recognize Missy right away?

So after it was established that Missy is actually both the Master, and the "woman in the shop" who gave Clara the TARDIS number... ...why didn't The Doctor or Clara recognize her right away? I remember the Tenth Doctor in The Sound of Drums stating that Timelords had a way of recognizing other Timelords no matter if they had regenerated. And Clara should have recognized her as well... I'm hoping for a better explanation than "Moffat screwed up", and that I actually missed something after two watchthroughs of the episode. Answer There seems to be a lot of in-canon uncertainty as to the extent to which Time Lords can recognise one another which far pre-dates Moffat's tenure. From the Time Lords page on Wikipedia : Whether or not Time Lords can recognise each other across regenerations is not made entirely clear: In The War Games, the War Chief recognises the Second Doctor despite his regeneration and it is implied that the Doctor knows him when they fir

Did the gatekeeper and the keymaster get intimate in Ghostbusters?

According to TVTropes ( usual warning, don't follow the link or you'll waste half your life in a twisty maze of content ): In Ghostbusters, it's strongly implied that Dana Barret, while possessed by Zuul the Gatekeeper, had sex with Louis Tully, who was possessed by Vinz Clortho the Keymaster (key, gate, get it?), in order to free Big Bad Gozer. In fact, a deleted scene from the movie has Venkman explicitly asking Dana if she and Louis "did it". I turned the quote into a spoiler since it contains really poor-taste joke, but the gist of it is that it's implied that as part of freeing Gozer , the two characters possessed by the Keymaster and the Gatekeeper had sex. Is there any canon confirmation or denial of this theory (canon meaning something from creators' interviews, DVD commentary, script, delete scenes etc...)? Answer The Richard Mueller novelisation and both versions of the script strongly suggest that they didn't have sex (or at the very l

the lord of the rings - Why is Gimli allowed to travel to Valinor?

Gimli was allowed to go to Valinor despite not being a ring bearer. Is this explained in detail or just with the one line "for his love for Galadriel"? Answer There's not much detail about this aside from what's said in Appendix A to Return of the King: We have heard tell that Legolas took Gimli Glóin's son with him because of their great friendship, greater than any that has been between Elf and Dwarf. If this is true, then it is strange indeed: that a Dwarf should be willing to leave Middle-earth for any love, or that the Eldar should receive him, or that the Lords of the West should permit it. But it is said that Gimli went also out of desire to see again the beauty of Galadriel; and it may be that she, being mighty among the Eldar, obtained this grace for him. More cannot be said of this matter. And Appendix B: Then Legolas built a grey ship in Ithilien, and sailed down Anduin and so over Sea; and with him, it is said, went Gimli the Dwarf . And when that sh

fan fiction - Does the Interdict of Merlin appear in original Harry Potter canon?

In Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality by Eliezer Yudkowsky a concept called the ' Interdict of Merlin ' appears: (all emphasis added) Chapter 23: His hand on the doorknob, Harry Potter already inside and waiting, wearing his cowled cloak. "The ancient first-year spells," Harry Potter said. "What did you find?" "They're no more powerful than the spells we use now." Harry Potter's fist struck a desk, hard. "Damn it. All right. My own experiment was a failure, Draco. There's something called the Interdict of Merlin -" Draco hit himself on the forehead, realizing. "- which stops anyone from getting knowledge of powerful spells out of books, even if you find and read a powerful wizard's notes they won't make sense to you, it has to go from one living mind to another. I couldn't find any powerful spells that we had the instructions for but couldn't cast. But if you can't get them out of old books,